The use of coercive measures is an indicator of the quality of psychiatric inpatient treatment. To date, there is no data available to European comparisons on the incidence of such measures. Methods The frequency and duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion on patients with a diagnosis of F2 ICD-10 was analysed in seven German and seven Swiss psychiatric hospitals in the year 2004 using three indicators. Differences between German and Swiss hospitals regarding the indicators were tested for statistical significance using Mann-Whitney-U-tests. Results 6.6 % (Switzerland) and 10.4 % (Germany) of admissions respectively were affected by mechanical restraint and 17.8 % (Switzerland) and 7.8 % (Germany) respectively by seclusion. Seclusion as well as mechanical restraint per case were applied significantly more often in German than in Swiss hospitals and were of significantly longer duration in Swiss than in German hospitals. Conclusion The results showed different patterns in the use of seclusion and mechanical restraint across Swiss and German hospitals. For future European research on the use of compulsory measures in routine psychiatric care, there is a need for uniformed definitions, reliable documentation of coercive measures as well as for an identical way of data analysis. To meet these conditions is the first step to achieve European standards for the use of coercive measures.

Open Access Research The use of mechanical restraint and seclusion in patients with schizophrenia: A comparison of the practice in Germany and Switzerland 1 21 Veronika Martin, Renate Bernhardsgrütter, Rita Goebeland 1 Tilman Steinert*

Abstract Background:The use of coercive measures is an indicator of the quality of psychiatric inpatient treatment. To date, there is no data available to European comparisons on the incidence of such measures.

Methods:The frequency and duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion on patients with a diagnosis of F2 ICD-10 was analysed in seven German and seven Swiss psychiatric hospitals in the year 2004 using three indicators. Differences between German and Swiss hospitals regarding the indicators were tested for statistical significance using Mann-Whitney-U-tests.

Results:6.6 % (Switzerland) and 10.4 % (Germany) of admissions respectively were affected by mechanical restraint and 17.8 % (Switzerland) and 7.8 % (Germany) respectively by seclusion. Seclusion as well as mechanical restraint per case were applied significantly more often in German than in Swiss hospitals and were of significantly longer duration in Swiss than in German hospitals.

Conclusion:The results showed different patterns in the use of seclusion and mechanical restraint across Swiss and German hospitals. For future European research on the use of compulsory measures in routine psychiatric care, there is a need for uniformed definitions, reliable documentation of coercive measures as well as for an identical way of data analysis. To meet these conditions is the first step to achieve European standards for the use of coercive measures.

Background Across Europe, restraint and seclusion are common inter ventions in psychiatric inpatient settings to deal with aggressive patient behaviour [1]. Since the 1990s there is a growing interest in the incidence of coercive measures in most European countries [2,3]. During the last years, there

have been a few European studies, in which psychiatric hospitals were compared regarding the frequency and duration of coercive measures. These studies are from the UK [4], Switzerland [5], Finland [6] and Germany [7,8]. To date, there is no available data for European compari sons on the incidence of such measures. This is partly due